ABSTRACT
This chapter evaluates modes of making collective decisions in terms of the criteria identified in Chapter 4. The evaluations are summarized in Table 5.1 on the next page. The scores in Table 5.1 are impressionistic in the sense that, while explanations can be given for them, they cannot be defended as unquestionable. Nevertheless, the scores serve to organize thinking about which modes are attractive, and why. A score consisting of one or more pluses indicates that a mode is attractive in terms of a criterion; the more pluses the better. Similarly, one or more minuses indicates a notable failure in terms of a criterion; the more minuses the worse. A combination of one or more pluses with one or more minuses indicates a situation in which performance has a notable range of possibilities. A zero indicates a neutral performance in terms of a criterion. In the next section the criteria are considered individually. As each criterion is considered, modes are evaluated in terms of it. In these subsections, modes are taken up in approximate order of their attractiveness in terms of the criterion under consideration. In the following section the modes are considered individually, their strengths and weaknesses discussed, and the circumstances in which they are most likely to be attractive are identified. The final section summarizes the conditions leading to choice of various modes. Criteria Procedural Efficiency
Authority (when the authority is a single individual) and random process are the modes that rank highest in terms of procedural efficiency. Procedural costs for these modes are minimal. Voting is next most attractive. Voting involves costs of informing voters, of going to the polls, and of processing the ballots. (Some of
Ta bl
e 5.
